[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 205 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H15284-H15285]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE DEMOCRATIC RESPONSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, over the last few days we have been having a 
momentous debate on this floor and in this country. We have been 
debating the balanced budget, not whether to have a balanced budget but 
how to have it. What are the proper priorities?
  A lot of people come to me and say, ``Why are you guys going back and 
forth on this?'' I tell them, no, it is a good debate, we ought to have 
this debate. But the question tonight becomes, why do we have to shut 
down the Government in order to have this debate?
  As a point of fact, I believe in a balanced budget, a 7-year balanced 
budget with CBO estimates. That is not the problem. The question before 
us tonight is why are we shutting down the Government, why are we 
putting millions of Federal employees out of work, why are we then 
paying them not to work on the eve of Christmas?
  That is the issue before us tonight.
  Well, I will tell you why. The reason why we are shutting down 
Government is because the Republicans cannot get their budget. Not 
because they cannot have this debate but because they cannot have their 
way.

  You see we were making progress. The President and the Republican 
leadership and the Democratic leadership were making good progress and 
they said, since we are making this progress, why do we not pass a 
continuing resolution to keep the Government up and running?
  The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] took this issue back to his 
Republican colleagues and the radical freshman Republicans said, ``No, 
it's our way or no way.'' So instead of having a reasonable compromise, 
a continuing resolution while this debate continues, we have shut down 
the Government.
  I was particularly irritated when I heard one of our smug freshman 
colleagues comment that, ``Well, I've got my Christmas tree and I'm 
bringing my family up, so I really don't care.''
  Well, I think that speaks for itself, but it is certainly a sad 
statement.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a 
second?
  Mr. WYNN. I would be happy to yield in just a minute.
  Let us talk about the merits of this issue. Let us talk about their 
notion of a balanced budget. First of all they cut $270 billion out of 
Medicare. Now, a gentleman got up a little earlier on the Republican 
side and said, ``Oh, no, this isn't a cut. We're just slowing the 
increase.''
  Let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, try this on the Defense 
Department. Take $270 billion out of a Defense Department budget that 
is below projected needs and then tell them that is not a cut. I do not 
think it would fly.
  We all know this is a cut. It is a significant cut. It means that by 
the year 2002 seniors will be paying on average $138 more per year just 
in additional premiums, not to mention the loss of choice of their 
doctors.
  They say, ``Well, that's not all that significant.'' Keep in mind 
these same seniors only average about $25,000 or less in annual income. 
So the Medicare question is significant. We do not need the big cut in 
Medicare. As was indicated, the actuaries say we only need to cut about 
$89 or $90 billion and we could solve the solvency problem.
  Then we go to Medicaid, and in their budget they want to cut 8 
million people off the rolls by the year 2002. They want to eliminate 
the guarantees that we have for the sick, the elderly, the poor, the 
blind, and the disabled. They want to take 3.8 million children off the 
Medicaid rolls and deny them the safety net guarantee that we have now.

  We have a problem with that. We do not think it is necessary. The 
reason it is not necessary is because they have hidden in their budget 
a little poison pill in the form of a $245 billion tax break for the 
wealthy.
  You cannot see this chart out there in America but I will tell you 
what it says. It says that about half of the tax breaks, half of the 
$245 billion, go to people making over $100,000 a year. I do not see 
any reason why we in this Congress ought to be giving a tax break to 
people making over $100,000 a year. But apparently they do. That is why 
we are having this problem.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WYNN. I would be happy to yield to my colleague from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. I want to ask you a question, because I heard you say 
that you believe in doing the CBO scoring. Is that right?
  Mr. WYNN. Absolutely.
  Mr. HEFNER. Let me ask you this and see if it makes sense. You are 
going to have a $245 billion tax cut, basically going to the wealthiest 
people in the country. Unless they get the $270 billion reduction in 
Medicare, and it gets scored that way, you cannot have the $245 billion 
tax cut. Does that make sense?
  Mr. WYNN. That makes sense to me.
  Mr. HEFNER. Is that not the way the scoring works?
  Mr. WYNN. That is the way the scoring works.
  Mr. HEFNER. Unless you get the cuts in Medicare, you cannot have the 
$245 billion tax cut?
  Mr. WYNN. That is right.
  Mr. HEFNER. And that ain't fair in any State in this country.
  Mr. WYNN. Absolutely. That is why they want to do it, so they can 
deliver this big tax break to people making over $100,000 a year.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WYNN. In just a minute.
  That does not make any sense. They come down and they say, give us 
honest figures, give us 7 years.
  Gentlemen, I will make you a deal. We will give you honest figures 
and 7 years. You get rid of the tax break for the wealthy, and I think 
we can work this out.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WYNN. In just a minute.
  The gentleman said, why do we not put all these people in a room, 
order pizzas and all that. Maybe we could do that, but you do not need 
to shut down the Government. You have got Scrooge and the Grinch that 
stole Christmas. Add to that list the Republican freshmen.
                                 F_____


                          REPUBLICAN REBUTTAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield my time in just a 
moment, but I do want to respond to the previous speaker.
  We repeatedly hear this demagoguery that there are tax cuts for the 
wealthy, and repeatedly during his comments when I asked an opportunity 
to enter into a colloquy, we heard that these tax benefits are for 
people making over $100,000 per year.
  Well, I have had a lot to do with that $500 per child tax credit. It 
is something that I have worked on from day one when I entered this 
Congress, something I totally believe in, because the American family 
is overtaxed, squeezed to the limit.
  For the family making $30,000 a year, I say to the gentleman, to the 
family making $30,000 a year with two children, they will see their 
Federal tax liability cut in half. That is not a tax break for the 
wealthy.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield on that specific 
point?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. No, sir, I believe I have the time and since you 
would not yield to me, I would like to complete my statement.
  The family making $30,000 a year with two children will see their 
Federal tax liability cut in half. That is a tax break to the wealthy? 
That family with $30,000 income and two children? I suggest to you no. 
They are not wealthy at all.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. Speaker, they are the very people who most need tax relief. For 
that couple with two children making $25,000 a year, they will see 
their entire Federal 

[[Page H15285]]
tax liability eliminated. I suggest to you that there are millions and 
millions of families out there right now who are desiring this tax 
relief to become a reality. In fact, I was on a radio talk show this 
morning, one call after another saying, please, do not let the liberals 
back you down on family tax relief. They need it. We need it. America 
needs it.
  I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough].
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, what is so distressing to me is the 
fact that the numbers are just being misstated politically. I saw Leon 
Panetta this weekend say that the majority of the tax cuts that go to 
the families were for wealthy Americans.
  The fact of the matter is, CBO has scored it that 89 percent, 89 
percent of these tax cuts go to families making $75,000 or less. What 
frightens me about this is that this is the liberal view, I guess, and 
the President's view of what now constitutes a rich person in America, 
a family with three or four people now making $75,000 or less is, 
according to Leon Panetta on This Week with David Brinkley, is now a 
rich person in America. That is a truly sad view of America.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
would like to point out that the $500 tax credit applies to a single 
person whose income is less than $75,000. Only then would her child be 
given a $500 tax credit and a married couple of 110. It is income 
sensitive to those families at that number and below.
  I want to reiterate the fact that we have tax cuts in our 7-year 
plan. We actually eliminate some programs. We slow the growth of other 
programs. We take entitlements and we definitely slow the growth of 
entitlements. But with Medicare, Medicare was to grow at 10 or 11 
percent. We did what Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested, that we get the 
growth of Medicare down to 6 to 7 percent. In fact it is actually 7.2 
percent. It is .2 percent higher than the First Lady suggested it 
should be.
  So what we are trying to do is slow the growth of certain programs. 
But if our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the President 
do not agree to that, it is a concept of opportunity cost. If you 
do not slow the growth of one program, where are you going to slow the 
growth of another program ultimately to balance the budget in 7 years?

  So I would just say it is just a misrepresentation of the fact if 
someone suggests that we are saying they have to agree to our budget. 
The President does not have to agree to our budget. He has to, for the 
first time, submit a balanced budget. If I had my wallet in my hand, I 
would take it out and I would offer it to my colleagues on the other 
side if they could show me a budget from the President of the United 
States that is balanced in 7 years using the Congressional Budget 
Office numbers. It simply has not been done.
  In fact, when the President submitted his last budget we put it up 
for a vote and only a very few Members on either side of the aisle 
supported it. What we are asking is a balanced budget in 7 years, 
scored by the Congressional Budget Office. It does not have to be our 
budget. It can be their tax cuts, with or without.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. If the gentleman will continue to yield, this is an 
important point. Even though we believe that that is important to us, 
we will put that on the table. We will put everything on the table. All 
we want is a balanced budget for future generations. If we have to take 
up certain tax cuts next year, fine. I just want to see the President 
of the United States say that my children and future generations are 
important enough that the Federal Government finally spends only as 
much money as they take in. Everything is on the table but negotiating 
our children's future. We must balance the budget.

                          ____________________